Comments on: Why video sucks

By: Tim Burden

Tim Burden — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:38:08 +0000

Thanks Ben,

I was clearly hyperbolizing when I talked about 10-minute videos with school trustees. Sure, there’s a right and a wrong way to do web video.

But my argument is that a newspaper’s – maybe not a TV station’s, but a newspaper’s – resources would be better spent taking care of basics and doing things they already know how to do.

I know that newspapers are asking for people to do video, and j-schools are quite rightly responding to that by teaching it. But I’m challenging that demand. I think it’s bandwagon-jumping with no real thought given to the business model.

I agree with you about the embedding bit, very good. When I did the website for a community newspaper, that’s how we did it. We put our own videos on YouTube and embedded them back on our site, and invited citizens to do the same. Even though we had our own Flash tool and plenty of server space.

Cheers
Tim

By: Ben LaMOthe

Ben LaMOthe — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:17:50 +0000

I was reading this and finding myself agreeing with much of it. Then I read this bit and realized we may be talking about two different things.

“They’d rather poke their own eyes out with sticks than sit though your 10-minute video on karate at the local martial arts club, or a high school dance, or your interview with the local school trustee. That’s right, a sharp, painful stick right in the eyeball.”

Even the most respected journalist or academic would have a hard time watching 10-minute video. Which is why most videos on newspaper Web sites are not 10 minutes long.

Effective video on a Newspaper site is 3-5 minutes long. Five minutes if it’s a really good piece. Your argument, I believe, falls under this caveat because I believe that newspapers are capable of producing 3-5 minutes of video to complement their print content, by telling a ’short and sweet’ video with an easily followed narrative. Photojournalism students across the U.S. — and Canada? — are learning how to shoot this kind of video because it’s in-demand at newspapers.

That’s the kind of video that is successful for newspapers.

And as for the SEO component, while it’s true that there is no one true video search engine for Web video, I believe it will come sooner rather than later. And when it does, you want to be able to jump right into it.

Also video presents a great opportunity for embeding, which links back to your site. Let local orgs embed video that you shoot, and have it link back to the site itself. Or set up a system where to be able to embed video, you’ve got to pay a small fee.

Bottom line: I agree with some of what you’re saying, but I believe newspapers can and should be producing its own video content.

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:10:09 +0000

Yes, we have no video in this strategy, except for that which is generated by the users.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:14:35 +0000

As long as your youth strategy doesn’t involve newspapers doing video, I’m with ya.

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:19:24 +0000

I don’t disagree with you in principle. A traffic strategy, good search capability, comments and an online sales strategy are all important, to be sure. They’re the basics, as you say. What’s missing is a youth strategy, particularly for online products. I believe if newpapers want to make a go of the web, they’ve got to make it easy and fun for young people in their communities to connect, share and learn. This is where new revenue streams reside. Ask any parent and they’ll you this: their kids have more spending power than they do.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:09:22 +0000

This isn’t even about what young people want or do not want. Old people don’t want to watch videos on RRSPs either. Not when they can watch better content on MoneyTV or whatever it might be.

This is about newspapers making a go of the web. It is a complete knee-jerk reaction to say, hey, look at how popular YouTube is, and then set about making videos, expecting Internet viewers to pile on. They won’t. They haven’t. And newspapers would be much better off spending their limited resources taking care of basics. Like traffic strategy, getting comments working (and other truly interactive things), but most of all, leveraging their talents.

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:36:51 +0000

Now don’t get me wrong. One of my favourite pastimes, too, is to sit around and groan long and loud about what newspapers are doing wrong on their websites. And speaking of past, by the way, I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because as users of the Internet go, I’m a bit past it at 41. Yes, video sucks when done by reporters who know that very few people will look at it and no one will read blogs written by staff who are told not to be too opinionated, etc. And in the absence of actually doing these things with young readers/users in mind, you might as well, as you say, chew on bark for shits and giggles. The answer is simple: provide a forum for the people who are doing this the best, a paper’s young readers/users (OhmiGod, did I actually say that? Can we really claim to have any readers/users under 40?) to upload blogs, videos, pics, the stuff that interests them. Bottom line: We are doing this cool stuff, video and such, for the wrong audience. If we shift our focus away from a video installment on RRSP’s for instance, and instead, develop a series on, say, when young people die or what their ideas are for fixing certain socials ills, we may have a future. After all, I don’t know about you, but I’m have an increasingly difficult time reading a lot of stuff online with my glasses